Regardless of your opinion regarding the admittance of women and openly active homosexuals to the sacred priesthood, one fact cannot be denied. These innovations fly in the face of sacred tradition and historic understanding and have dealt a massive, if not fatal, blow to hope of reconciliation with the ancient Churches of East and West. That is to say they move us further away from the teaching of the vast majority of Christendom. Rightly or wrongly we are now out on a limb.
By tinkering with holy orders, against the expressed desire of both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican Church has ended all hope of Church Unity for the foreseeable future. Liberal minded Anglicans would argue this is a regrettable yet necessary sacrifice to usher in prophetic change. Evangelicals and Catholics would disagree, seeing this as a devastating end of an era. The Church of England we loved is changed forever and something new is emerging in its place.
This might sound overly dramatic but is true. These are momentous times on a par with the reformation, consider the evidence. The old Anglican Church only endorsed things proven by scripture, reason and tradition. The new Anglicanism opts instead for emotive reliance on secular understanding and human experience. If you doubt this explain why our brothers and sisters in Rome and Constantinople, and many within, remain utterly opposed to our actions? If, as some will claim, we have ample biblical evidence, would they not be easily convinced? We are out on a limb for a reason-we have not convinced the majority of Christians of the validity of our actions. And furthermore we stubbornly refuse to admit that we might have got things wrong.
The old Anglican Church prided itself on being the ‘via media’, the middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism. It was generous, broad and cohesive, holding together the best of Catholic, Evangelical and Liberal thinking. But the new Anglicanism is petulant and narrow, seen in its total refusal to accommodate traditionalists. It strives only for liberal revelations, driving Evangelicals and Catholics to the margins in abandonment of scripture and tradition.
Yes the old Anglican Church is dying, if not dead, as the cuckoo of progressive liberalism heaves it from its nest. And that explains why the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and many protestant churches, have effectively given up on us. Yes dialogue continues, it always will, but we see in the offering of Ordinariates and the limit of 20 minute timeslots for the Archbishop, an altered status. No longer are we seen as part of the fractured church once built on the Apostles, instead we are viewed as an emerging, heretical sect at odds with traditional Christian thinking.
It is clear that Pope Benedict is currently bringing Churches together in order to combat the cancer of secularisation- how sad that today’s Anglicans are now seen as part of the problem instead of the cure. For we have been infected with the thinking of this world and, with each passing year, we move further away from the historic faith of Christ Jesus. The old Anglicans would have been thought of very differently for they would have behaved very differently.. One question remains then- can true revival come from within? Or is it time to move to fresh pastures?
Well, of course, I agree with little of this and find some of the tone and terminology pretty slanted. Forget that. My single point here is that, although Anglican ‘innovations’ in the areas mentioned are indeed repudiated by ‘the authorities’ in the RC and Orthodox churches, they find much greater support among the laity. I know no British or Irish RCs (apart from arrivistes like Jeff Steel) who do not think women priests a jolly good thing, as do 79% of French RCs. I know no British or Irish RCs who are against gay priests (including ‘active’ ones). Do I attribute theological value to ‘laity’ views? Yes, I do. I think hierarchies everywhere are dismally behind the curve. I realise this is an essentially ‘Protestant’ position – but it is one increasingly widespread in the above churches as well (consult Fr Mark’s ‘Via Integra’ blog).
A related question: IF you ‘turn’, IF your congregation comes with you, and IF you get to keep your building, will you refuse communion to non-RC Anglicans like me? You should, under ‘official’ RC rules (unless under special circs.), but will you? Many RC priests, both in the UK and – even more – in Europe (and also Orthodox priests) haven’t the slightest compunction about giving communion to Anglicans, and, of course, as you know, the great and glorious C of E extends communion to all Christians who receive it in their own churches.
I think that is two questions at the end rather than one. And probably requiring a “no”/”"yes” or “yes/”no” response.
I doubt whether the church’s attempts to accommodate science rather than keep it at arms length (not deny the truths of science but not confuse them with religious thought) are likely to work any better by attempting a similar accommodation with secularism. The church’s appeal surely is in NOT being part of secular society. Or have I missed something?
If a church changes its stance and dogma to cater for the ever changing life-styles of its congregation then it might as well become a fashion house changing every season to attract an ever fickle clientele.
Jesus didn’t say to Peter “and on this rock I will build my church”, for no reason.
This post is sad but true…
John,
Catholics in the UK obviously represent a spectrum of views and these include liberal positions very much in favour or the ordination of women as well as the opposite point of view. You may not know many RC’s in UK or Ireland who are opposed to female or actively gay priests – but you couldn’t talk to many Catholics! Where also is your evidence that many RC priests in the UK haven’t the “slightest compunction about giving communion to Anglicans”. While I recognise that some priests will from time to time have allowed non-Catholics to recieve communion – it is hardly an accepted or even common practice.
I have to disagree with John.
Yes, “Anglican innovations” have great “support among the laity.” Where is the Theological value in that? We love the Kool-Aid, but all it does is cause tooth decay.
“Hierarchies everywhere are dismally behind the curve.”
They are actually so far ahead of the curve that you can’t see them any more.
I agree with Fr Ed. However, John, nobody would argue with you who deliberately ignores doctrine and theology. But ours is a revealed religion, i.e. God has revealed himself and his will, and all is recorded in sacred Scripture. And since God is the inspiration behind it– all of it– the bits of it that touch on these issues trumps anything the majority of the laity of whatever nation may “feel”.
And if Fr Ed et al sign on with B-XVI, they’ll be expected to sign on to the same doctrines, etc. as B-XVI, thus we who are left behind will only be able to ask him for a blessing if we make so bold as to approach the rail in his parish church, and otherwise only adore the Body of Christ from a distance.
John, you ARE living in cloud cuckoo land.
I think it preposterous, considering your published views, that you should attempt to pronounce on the Catholic Church’s view of things! The views you posit as ours are not the view of the vast majority of my very cosmopolitain congregation (c. 1,500 each weekend)
‘Pastures new’ may appear to be greener for some traditional Anglicans Father but this is not the time to throw in the towel.
We are not alone in harbouring deluded souls unable to separate secular standards from traditional religious beliefs and it should be no surprise that fathers, sons, mothers and daughters are divided.
The Anglican middle way is too precious to be abandoned without a fight. There are still many who do not want to see us abandoned. We must continue to pray for them.
Petros
John, I know plenty of RC laity and clergy who adhere to the official position on intercommunion and on women priests, even if there are those who dissent. Why those who dissent don’t become Anglicans is puzzling, for they will be waiting until doomsday for the RC Church to change its teachings. In any case, women’s ordination is not something that can be changed by a pope, whose authority can only be exercised inside Tradition, not outside of it. It is not a case of “won’t” but “can’t”. Niether has this ever been seen in the same category as changing church teaching on, say, slavery, or the temporal authority of the papacy, or Galileo. We should just agree to differ and accept that the Catholic Church is not going to become some doctrinally diffuse larger version of the Anglican Church. It never was going to change to the Anglican position because Anglicans want it to; neither will it change for RC laity or clergy who may be influenced, like much of Anglicanism, by the values of secular, supposedly “rationalist” liberalism. It will not change on such an issue because it cannot change. It doesn’t matter whether you or I or the Archbishop of Westminster wanted it to; it simply won’t, now or ever, which is why we are talking about much more than disagreement on a particular doctrinal position, but the very understanding of what the Church is and can do. This ignorance was so evident in Rowan William’s attempt to distinguish women priests as a secondary issue, a matter of discipline. Rome will never see it as that. There are great varieties of discipline in the Latin Church as well as in the Eastern Rites, but this is not a secondary issue for them but one that is bound up in the understanding of creation and the belief that they are bound by Tradition and Christ’s own example and that the Church is not simply a human arrangement subject to current cultural concerns. I don’t expect Rowan Williams to believe this, but neither should he believe that the RC Church will take his position.
I write incidentally as a fellow member of the CofI, and a TCD theology graduate, as I made clear in the other threat, which you may not have missed, in case you still think I am an RC who is ignorant of Anglican positions on this (or, as in the other thread, church origins).
Dear Fr Ed., Apologies for typos in the previous message, in particular “Threat” should have read “thread” (!) in the last paragraph, and “niether” should have been “neither” – I mustn’t type so fast!
I also notice that John is taking a different line on the laity now. I recall that he argued that the CofI was the authentically ancient Irish Church on the grounds that the majority of its bishops went with the reformation. The vast majority of lower clergy and laity manifestly did not go with the reformation. Should he not therefore be supporting the choice of the Irish laity at that time, or is this something that can be put down to ignorance and Romish thralldom?
Dear Fr Ed
Thank you for your interesting piece, submitted on 4th December. I think it’s time for another dose of diazepam, maybe two.
Yours sincerely
John
I sincerely wonder if Mr. John Moles can find posts on this issue where he can refrain from saying something negative about me or painting me in some negative light. It comes close to a very unhealthy obsession with him that makes one feel a bit uneasy.
I am afraid Mr. Moles does not run with many Catholics within his own diocese as he would see it from a different point of view and not make such illogical fallacies as if we are all supposed to believe that the Catholics in the northeast believe the way he does. Do I know Catholics who believe women should be ordained? Yes. Will they ever be? Read Apostolic again Mr. Moles.
Mr. Moles does not like posts like this:
http://frjeffreysteel.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-rowan-williams-is-wrong-priesthood.html
[...] Edward Tomlinson SSC, in his post of yesterday: “The cuckooo emerges“, makes the following comments: “Regardless of your opinion regarding the admittance of [...]
Apostolic,
You misrepresent me (again). I did not say the C of I was ‘the authentically Irish Church’: I said it was ‘relatively loosely attached’ (vel sim.) to Rome before Whitby.
Jeff, Cheap shot. Also misrepresentation of what I was saying – which was (merely) a counter to Ed’s claim that C of E views are very minority within Christianity: from another point of view, a ‘bottom-up’ one, they’re not.
John seems to be labouring under the delusion that the question of what is true can be settled by democratic means. It cannot. What is true is true, and no amount of wishing it were otherwise can change that.
As far as your “Many RC priests… haven’t the slightest compunction about giving communion to Anglicans” goes, merely saying “many” doesn’t make it so. Our parish priest would certainly not administer the Eucharist to non-Catholics. Neither would any other priest I know. If you’re going to make claims about what “many” priests (apparently) do, why not name names? And if you really don’t know any Catholics who are against women’s ordination or openly gay priests, my wife and I would be happy to introduce you to quite a few.
I suspect, John, that it is just the limited theological circles you move in which gives you the impression that Catholics agree with you and that the Church will change. Liberalism in the Catholic Church will be dead in the water in a generation or two, because we young Catholics, both priests and laity, are sick of it.
If you’re happy with people playing clerical dress-up, that’s entirely up to you. Just don’t expect the rest of us to discard orthodoxy for heresy in the name of democracy.
No, Matthew, I’m not labouring under that delusion. My point was – do I have to state it yet again? – a limited one.
I don’t think I move in restricted theological circles. I teach and talk to ‘ordinary’ RCs. I haven’t met one opposed to women’s priests. It is certainly true that communion is freely administered to all and sundry on the Continent. It is a matter of record that one of the priests at our local RC seminary wrote to a friend (Evangelical C of E priest) and said: ‘please keep your misogynist and homophobic FiF priests’.
I am not instantly claiming that 100% RCs agree with me. I do claim that there are lots who do and that this notion that Anglicanism (in these manifestations) is opposed by solid phalanxes of RCs and Orthodox is very partial. I’m in favour of official ecumenical proceedings – but even more in favour of the practical intercommunion which is very widespread. I think you ought to get out a bit more, alike in the UK, Europe and the US.
Given the flimsiness of their argument, the certainty with which opponents of the ordination of women and gay people make their case, and the time and effort they put into elevating these issues out of all proportion to their importance, never ceases to amaze me. They do protest too much.
It clearly does not stand up on a purely scriptural basis, and vague talk about tradition and historic understanding is a smokescreen – it does not get to the nub of the issue. Why, when all the faults of male priests are (rightly) put to one side because something more powerful is at work, is the issue of gender the sole focus, and the sole impediment, in the case of women? Why do the perceived sins of gay priests carry so much more weight than those of straight ones? (And the use of the words “openly” and “partnered” reveal the hypocracy at work here)
I do not believe that these opponents are misogynists. But claiming allegiance with the evangelicals is not helpful – remember, these people do not recognise the catholic concept of priesthood at all, but oppose women’s ordination for very different, almost opposite, reasons. They do not want to see women in ANY position of authority. And it would help to show that catholics do not share this view if we saw a few women servers in churches like S. Barnabas. This would give credance to the claim that the “women” issue is strictly limited to holy orders.
I am convinced that, rather than anything sinister, many opponents resist the idea of women in this role at a deeply cultural, even aesthetic, level. That’s fine. It is a human, gut reaction. I just wish that some of them would admit it.
John, you should get out more. I can introduce you to dozens of Catholics who would be horrified to hear that an ‘active’ homosexual had been ordained and I don’t know even one who wouldn’t. I am fully aware that there are many calling themselves ‘Catholic’ who ignore the teachings of the Church, and some within the Clergy. That does not affect the teachings of the Church one jot – they are never going to get a vote on Church teaching – Deo Gratias. It doesn’t matter what some, even a majority, of those styling themselves ‘Catholic’ have decided to believe. The Church is teaching the truth and some of us know that this is so and that we are the Church and that they have decided to be a church unto themselves.
With all due respect, John, if you’re not labouring under the democratic delusion, why make a link between what you perceive the majority of Catholic laity to believe and hierarchies being “dismally behind the curve” in this regard? What then was the point of the first paragraph of your first reply post?
Re. “ordinary” Catholics–what do you mean by “ordinary”? From my perspective, “ordinary” Catholics disagree with women’s ordination; “ordinary” is ordinary both because that is by far and away the majority opinion of all the Catholics I know around the country, and (far more importantly) because it is the continuous teaching of the Church that she has no authority to ordain women.
If, in terms of doctrine, ordinariness is not equated (at least in part) with orthodoxy, how then can it be ordinary in any meaningful sense? Without orthodoxy, “ordinary” becomes just a following of majority opinion and the Zeitgeist. Such “ordinary” people are to be catechised and prayed for that they might listen to the Spirit of God and not the spirit of the age, not have their “ordinary” thoughts enshrined in a mob-rule Church!
Communion being administered to “all and sundry”? Perhaps that is the case currently on the continent, but I’ll happily wager that in 20-30 years time, when the Church has left the so-called “spirit” of Vatican II behind her (but–to clarify–*not* the Council itself!), it won’t be. After all, imperfect communion cannot a basis for intercommunion; the type of ecumenism you seem to be in favour of is, sadly, not ecumenism at all.
As far as your letter-writing Catholic priest, why are you not naming him? Why so shy?
The cancer of secularisation? This must be a case of the first beneficent cancer in history.